The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[CleverNickName]

The rules you want exist, it simply is not, and will not, be 5e.

Its still D&D, some would argue its more D&D than 5e, its just not sold by Wizbro.

I know what you're getting at, and I agree to a point: there are tons of RPGs out there, and if you're unhappy with one, you should definitely branch out and try a different one.

But...well, the rules I want are in the Rules Cyclopedia (or the BECM boxed sets), and they are sold by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. I'm not going to settle for something that's only "close enough" just to spite Wizards of the Coast. That's like ordering a side salad when I'm craving french fries: not only will it be unsatisfying, it'll only make me crave the real thing even more.

Unpopular opinion: Wizards of the Coast did right by me, by putting the SRD 5.1 into the Creative Commons. They didn't have to do that, but it's incredibly cool that they did and I don't mind rewarding that decision with my wallet.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

On the other hand, I think we're about to see a lot more 5Eisms in non-WotC books. Maybe it won't be right to call them OSR, but a Rules Cyclopedia built with the CC-available rules is very doable and can't ever be yanked back by future WotC management, the way, in theory, a DMs Guild/DriveThruRPG version could.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I know what you're getting at, and I agree to a point: there are tons of RPGs out there, and if you're unhappy with one, you should definitely branch out and try a different one.

But...well, the rules I want are in the Rules Cyclopedia (or the BECM boxed sets), and they are sold by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. I'm not going to settle for something that's only "close enough" just to spite Wizards of the Coast. That's like ordering a side salad when I'm craving french fries: not only will it be unsatisfying, it'll only make me crave the real thing even more.

Unpopular opinion: Wizards of the Coast did right by me, by putting the SRD 5.1 into the Creative Commons. They didn't have to do that, but it's incredibly cool that they did and I don't mind rewarding that decision with my wallet.

I agree with everything you said, except to say that there are BECMI/RC based retroclones available, so I guess you don't have to.

That being the case, on a casual review I am kind of surprised that most Basic retroclones are B/X rather than BECMI/RC. I wonder why that is?

 

[Scribe]

I know what you're getting at, and I agree to a point: there are tons of RPGs out there, and if you're unhappy with one, you should definitely branch out and try a different one.

But...well, the rules I want are in the Rules Cyclopedia (or the BECM boxed sets), and they are sold by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. I'm not going to settle for something that's only "close enough" just to spite Wizards of the Coast. That's like ordering a side salad when I'm craving french fries: not only will it be unsatisfying, it'll only make me crave the real thing even more.

Unpopular opinion: Wizards of the Coast did right by me, by putting the SRD 5.1 into the Creative Commons. They didn't have to do that, but it's incredibly cool that they did and I don't mind rewarding that decision with my wallet.

Mostly its in reference to what people are looking for. That 'thing' is out there, its just not part of the monolith.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That being the case, on a casual review I am kind of surprised that most Basic retroclones are B/X rather than BECMI/RC. I wonder why that is?

The age at which the OSR creators imprinted on D&D.

I imprinted on AD&D, so stuff like Swords & Wizardry, which emulates OD&D, does nothing for me. Nor does stuff that emulates 2E.

 

[CleverNickName]

On the other hand, I think we're about to see a lot more 5Eisms in non-WotC books. Maybe it won't be right to call them OSR, but a Rules Cyclopedia built with the CC-available rules is very doable and can't ever be yanked back by future WotC management, the way, in theory, a DMs Guild/DriveThruRPG version could.

They probably won't show up to take my hardcopy off my bookshelf, though. Or the print-on-demand "table copy" that I got. Or my collectable boxed sets...

That being the case, on a casual review I am kind of surprised that most Basic retroclones are B/X rather than BECMI/RC. I wonder why that is?

I've wondered that myself. It could be that most retroclones are based off of the B/X series (by Holmes) because it's older, and therefore has more nostalgia, than the BECM series (by Mentzer). Or it could be because of the overlap between them (both versions have Basic and Expert, but only the latter also has Companion and Masters). BECM was criticized heavily when it was released: fans of Holmes Basic thought it was unnecessary, fans of AD&D thought it was "for kids."

But you're right: most retroclones seem to favor B/X for some reason, and all I've got are guesses.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree with everything you said, except to say that there are BECMI/RC based retroclones available, so I guess you don't have to.

That being the case, on a casual review I am kind of surprised that most Basic retroclones are B/X rather than BECMI/RC. I wonder why that is?

B/X is the better ruleset.

I know that the distinctions, from the 1000' view, seem miniscule now. But you just can't beat the elegance of Moldvay/Cook.

More people actually know Mentzer. Just like more people actually know the LIES AND CALUMNIES heaped upon Bargle. #BARGLEWASFRAMED.

But when OSR creators look back for a platonic idea, they almost always end up realizing that there is a reason that Moldvay/Cook are still so celebrated. Because, for lack of a better term, they RAWK.

 

[CleverNickName]

I agree on all points, Snarf, except one.

Bargle can go right to hell.

 

[Parmandur]

They probably won't show up to take my hardcopy off my bookshelf, though. Or the print-on-demand "table copy" that I got. Or my collectable boxed sets...


I've wondered that myself. It could be that most retroclones are based off of the B/X series (by Holmes) because it's older, and therefore has more nostalgia, than the BECM series (by Mentzer). Or it could be because of the overlap between them (both versions have Basic and Expert, but only the latter also has Companion and Masters). BECM was criticized heavily when it was released: fans of Holmes Basic thought it was unnecessary, fans of AD&D thought it was "for kids."

But you're right: most retroclones seem to favor B/X for some reason, and all I've got are guesses.

Not so hard to guess: per the sales numbers Ben Riggs shard last year, B/X outsold BECMI by big margins. Basic D&D sales nosedive in '83, along with AD&D.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I started playing D&D in 1996 so for me, BECMI/RC was like Holmes' Basic and Moldvay/Cook B/X but with just more. Especially when using the one big book approach of the RC which was still around a bit then. Now that I've gotten older and gotten into the mega-nerd territory of looking into the minute differences between the versions, I'm still not convinced any different? Then again, I'll happily play OSE and call it good (though it does incorporate some stuff from AD&D and other stuff too, so it isn't "pure" either).